SURESH Vs. CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners instituted a suit for a declaration that they should be declared to be the half owners of the property in question on the basis of a registered Will left by their mother. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent No.1, executed a sale deed for the entire house. Accordingly, the plaintiffs filed an amendment application seeking a further relief in the suit, namely, for the cancellation of the sale deed with respect to her share of the property. This amendment was allowed and the said relief was incorporated in the plaint, as relief No.2.

(2.) THE trial Court framed issue No.2 with regard to the sufficiency of the court fee. The trial Court, by an order dated 28-5-2004, found that the petitioners had valued the plaint at Rs.1.00 lac, whereas, the valuation of the property, as per the sale deed, was Rs.5,20,000=00. The trial Court, also found, that the court fee was required to be paid in accordance with the provisions of Section 7(iv-A) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 as applicable in the State of U.P. The trial Court accordingly directed the plaintiff to file an appropriate amendment application for the amendment of its plaint. The plaintiffs, being aggrieved, by the aforesaid order, preferred an appeal which was rejected. Notwithstanding the fact that the petitioners had preferred an appeal against the order dated 28-5-2004, the petitioners filed an amendment application praying for the deletion of paragraph No.8 of the plaint and for substituting it with a fresh paragraph indicating the value of the plaint at Rs.2,60,000/- and a court fee of Rs.200/-. The valuation of Rs.2,60,000/- was shown on the ground that the sale deed indicated the value of the total property at Rs.5,20,000/- and that since the plaintiffs were claiming to be the half owners, consequently, the valuation was shown at Rs.2,60,000/-. The court fee was indicated in accordance with the provisions of Article 17(iii) of the Second Schedule of the Court Fees Act, 1870.

(3.) HEARD Sri C.S. Agnihotri, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Shyamal Narain, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2.